Shrinking courses as new paradigm?

[Ronald Montesano]

"All seaside, and under 6,500 yards. Is that enough golf for really low handicappers? Who cares? Why does a course have to be hard to be considered great? Oh, because another magazine said so. Cabot Links epitomizes the new breed. You're paying no attention to the length of the holes. There are so many puzzles to be solved, amid such a scenic, delightful walk, there's no need to add up how many par-4s are of such-and-such length, or how many dogleg this way versus that way. You leave knowing you were involved and entertained every step of the way. Perhaps that's the new yardstick of greatness."

This quote, from Ran's Q&A with Joe Passov (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56465.0.html) has me wonder: if shorter becomes the new yardstick of greatness, will renovation golf architects begin to shrink courses from the 1970s-present, that were built toward that 7500-yard number, or will they look for other methods (beyond Tee It Forward) to retro-fit a course to the new paradigm?

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald:

I really doubt that shrinking courses would be a trend.  In all the years I've done consulting work, I've suggested giving up yardage on holes a few times to make a hole more interesting, and never once has a green committee agreed to give up any yardage on their course.  They're putting in more forward tees on many courses, and sometimes (under coercion) moving up the middle tees, but they have not abandoned any back tees.

The "trend" Joe noted derives from two simple facts:

1.  Raters love ocean views, and
2.  Oceanfront real estate is more expensive, so those courses tend to be shorter.

[Mark Bourgeois]

 I have two thoughts that may be related:

1. When it comes to I&B, the genie never gets put back in the bottle, so forget about shrinking courses.
2. Given the collapse in demand - well, a reduction at least - among the next generation of golfers, as the average age of a club's / course's golfers rises, back tees will atrophy and the length played by most will drop well below 6,500. Hmm, I wonder if  course maintenance /architecture conflicts between older and younger members will be the spiritual descendent of golfer vs tennis player budget battles.


And one more thought:
Forget about shorter and focus on wider. Many courses are too narrow for their length. Some have been made that way via narrowed fairways.

[Niall C]

Tom

Should we worry about the back tees if, and it might be a big if, they are left for the once a year club championship events ? What struck me about the recent thread about great courses under 6,500 yards was how many courses didn't qualify because they were measured of the very back tees that hardly ever got played. I've played courses where on a couple of holes a back tee has been stuck in a couple of tees to give the hole and therefore the course an exaggerated length. Which is all very well but I'd bet there would be some long standing members of those clubs who probably don't even know where those tees are.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ronald:

I really doubt that shrinking courses would be a trend.  In all the years I've done consulting work, I've suggested giving up yardage on holes a few times to make a hole more interesting, and never once has a green committee agreed to give up any yardage on their course.  They're putting in more forward tees on many courses, and sometimes (under coercion) moving up the middle tees, but they have not abandoned any back tees.

The "trend" Joe noted derives from two simple facts:

1.  Raters love ocean views, and
2.  Oceanfront real estate is more expensive, so those courses tend to be shorter.

Tom,

Whilst I can see that existing courses might be very unwilling to give up yardage, I'm surprised that it has never happened with you... As an aside, how many times have you managed to persuade a client to go for shorter routing options on new builds?....

I was so lucky to have a first client who understood intimately what he wanted and agreed to give up 200 yards because he knew it would benefit the course. Most others would have shot for length straight away...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron,

The other day I was playing an old course and they were adding back tees.

I was playing behind one of their younger members who had just finished as runner-up in a big regional amateur tournament, and was impressed with how very far and high he hit the ball.  I don't see that club abandoning their back tees in order to make he course easier for him.

A young fellow behind us drove one of the shorter par 4's

I agree with Tom Doak in that I don't see any semblance of a trend to "shorten" courses.

The young modern competitive golfer is very long

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I hope the Modern young competitive golfer has a very big wallet to cover the loss of all the aging 18 hdcp boomers looking for fun 6200 yard golf without taking 5 hours, a second mortgage and a trip to the chiropractor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I hope the Modern young competitive golfer has a very big wallet to cover the loss of all the aging 18 hdcp boomers looking for fun 6200 yard golf without taking 5 hours, a second mortgage and a trip to the chiropractor.

Jud,

You and many others are seriously misguided.

Young golfers, especially competitive golfers live by Shivas's quote.
Words to the effect that "Chicks dig the long ball"
And so do young bucks playing the game.
It's an inate aspect and lure of the game.
EVERYBODY wants to hit he ball LONGER.
Especially the young bucks, hence you'll see no trend toward 6,200 yard courses becoming the desired field of play amongst the younger guys.

As to your claim that hitting the ball long and longer course produce 5 hour rounds, that's also seriously misguided.
GCGC is 6,900+ and rounds are expected to be played in 3.5 hours.

At what clubs are rounds for young; long hitting golfers taking 5 hours ?
Would you cite just 10 ?

As to trips to the chiropractor, I don't know of any golfers I play with, who hit the ball a long way, who visit chiropractors due to golf related injuries.

I think you may have adopted a series of myths in an attempt to be politically correct in the eyes of some.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

What was the distance at GCGC in 1908?  What was the initiation, dues and maintenance budget in inflation adjusted terms? Do you agree that more distance equals more real estate, water, staff, time and money?  Do you think there's an efficient frontier of these resources that maximizes utility for the most members, or is there complete elasticity of resources and demand?  When's the last time you played a round of golf for less than $100?

[Frank Pont]

In all the years I've done consulting work, I've suggested giving up yardage on holes a few times to make a hole more interesting, and never once has a green committee agreed to give up any yardage on their course.  They're putting in more forward tees on many courses, and sometimes (under coercion) moving up the middle tees, but they have not abandoned any back tees.

That really surprises me Tom.

In my short 10 years as an architect I have already shortened at least 4-5 par 4's to make them potentially driveable. Usually it would be shortening a 310-340 m par 4 to say 260-290 m. I have never had any problems convincing the greens committees on the reasons why that made sense. And once it was done the change sold itself because people saw the increased risk reward potential and liked it.

It just shows that process is as important as diagnosis in dealing with change at existing clubs.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Whilst I can see that existing courses might be very unwilling to give up yardage, I'm surprised that it has never happened with you... As an aside, how many times have you managed to persuade a client to go for shorter routing options on new builds?....

I was so lucky to have a first client who understood intimately what he wanted and agreed to give up 200 yards because he knew it would benefit the course. Most others would have shot for length straight away...

Ally:

It's easier to get them to choose the shorter option if it's the only one you show them 

[Patrick_Mucci]

What was the distance at GCGC in 1908?

Don't know about 1908, nor do I see any relevance in that date, but in 1899 the yardage was 6,070.
Mountain Ridge was 6,600 yards on opening day in 1929.
Augusta was 6,700 when the first Masters was conducted in the 1930's.

 What was the initiation, dues and maintenance budget in inflation adjusted terms?


Pretty much the same as they are now.
Clubs were a luxury in the early part of the 1900's, just as they are today.

Do you agree that more distance equals more real estate, water, staff, time and money?

No.

With regard to real estate, often a course's distance is unrelated to the total acreage of the property

200, 400 and 600 yards don't necessarily increase any of those factors significantly.
As an example, on a 540 yard par 5, if I insert a new back tee at 620, the additional annual water, staff and money associated with maintaining that tee is minimal.  I haven't altered anything in the body of the hole or at the green, thus my costs to maintain haven't increased significantly.

It's "conditions" not added distance at the tee that have driven up budgets significantly

Do you think there's an efficient frontier of these resources that maximizes utility for the most members, or is there complete elasticity of resources and demand?

A club can't cater to and please "most" members, it has to cater to and please "ALL" members.
When members pay equal dues they expect an equal product.
Guys who drive the ball 250-300 or more don't want to play 6,200 yard golf courses.

I don't want to play 6,200 yard golf courses.......... Yet
And my teenage son and his peers don't want to play 6,200 yard courses.
Listening to them, they want to play the back tees to test their golfing "manhood"

You're out of touch and misguided if you think there's a trend toward 6,200 yard golf courses.

When's the last time you played a round of golf for less than $100?

Last Wednesday when I paid $ 150 for my son and I to play 18. ($75@2)
The $ 150 included range balls and a cart for us.

What's the relevance of your question ?

[Jud_T]

OK Pat,  let's go to your neighborhood high school track.  I'll walk 6000 yards, you walk 7000.  We'll both walk at a pace of exactly 4 miles per hour.  I won't even make you hit the extra 5 golf shots you'd need to cover the extra 1000 yards .  Who will finish first?  Who's shoes will have more wear?  Who will cause more damage to the track surface?

[Lyne Morrison]

A few points.

Research reports that traditional sports like golf may experience a decline in audience numbers and participation rates unless they can connect to wider audiences. One could suggest this is already an emerging trend. Furthermore, sports designed to cater for a young demographic may need to reassess their position in order to fully cater to a diverse, aging population.

Like others I have clients who in planning for change have requested playable course conditions for the masses. They have no will for excessive length after witnessing clubs in their region loose members and struggle economically due to difficult playing conditions (their assessment). Interestingly and for the same reason they have no love for severely contoured greens.

In some ways this brings to mind the question raised a week or so ago with regards gca entering a conservative period?  In some cases this may well be the case, dependent on identified market needs.  

Lyne

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK Pat,  let's go to your neighborhood high school track.  I'll walk 6000 yards, you walk 7000.  We'll both walk at a pace of exactly 4 miles per hour.  I won't even make you hit the extra 5 golf shots you'd need to cover the extra 1000 yards .  Who will finish first?  Who's shoes will have more wear?  Who will cause more damage to the track surface?

Another irrelevant analogy that doesn't address the questions I asked you.
Why won't you answer the questions ?
Why do you choose instead to draw deeply flawed analogies ?

Part of the fallacy of your analogy is equating our "pace", which in fact is unequal
You may walk at 4 mph but others may walk at 6 or 8 mph.
You may take 4 practice swings while others take none.
You may begin to line up your putt from every angle only when it's your turn while others have lined up their putts as others are putting.
Your pre-putting routine might take a minute while others take their stance and putt without delay.

You've presented another irrelevant analogy, one  that completely ignores the repetitive activity occurring on the course, "GOLF"

And, in case you didn't know it, "Golf" isn't a straight line linear exercise.
A 7,000 yard course could produce an 9,000 yard walk for one golfer and a considerably shorter walk for another.

So, cite for us ten (10) courses where it takes five (5) hours to play a round of golf.

So far your arguments are .........unmoving

[Jud_T]

So now we're back to the "better golfers play faster" argument.  Have you been sleeping through the PGA? (Ok don't answer that).  Do you really believe that all things being equal distance has no effect on time?  I know your school days were a while ago, but I didn't think they preceeded the scientific concepts of time and distance...Next questions on the 4th grade math quiz:  If land has a fixed cost in a given area,  which costs more, 150 acres or 175 acres?  If each acre of turf takes X amount of water to survive, which parcel requires more water?

[Patrick_Mucci]

So now we're back to the "better golfers play faster" argument.  

Only in your mind and in your attempt to deflect and avoid answering the questions

Would you cite where I stated that better golfers played faster.

Have you been sleeping through the PGA? (Ok don't answer that).

I haven't watched he PGA this week

Do you really believe that all things being equal distance has no effect on time?  

I believe that distance alone has very little effect on time.

GCGC = 6,900+ = play in 3.5 hours
Other courses 6,500 and under can take 4:40
Factors other than distance cause slow play and long rounds

I know your school days were a while ago, but I didn't think they preceeded the scientific concepts of time and distance...

My math and science skills remain sharp, while your ability to comprehend logic and common sense have suffered.
As I initially stated, you're misguided and/or making a feeble attempt to jump on the "politically correct" bandwagon.
Factors other than yardage are responsible for slow play.

But, since you're so mathematically skilled, why don't you create a formula that correlates yardage to time of play.
And, while you're at it, identify ten (10) clubs where play routinely takes five (5) hours.

That's a question you haven't been able to answer yet .

[Jud_T]

OK so playing an 8000 yard course takes the same amount of time as a 9 hole par 3 because the real issue is preshot routine and etiquette.  Now you're going to tell me that both courses take up the same amount of real estate and have the same maintenance costs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK so playing an 8000 yard course takes the same amount of time as a 9 hole par 3 because the real issue is preshot routine and etiquette.  Now you're going to tell me that both courses take up the same amount of real estate and have the same maintenance costs.

Jud,

Stop avoiding the answering of my question/s by presenting ridiculously flawed analogies.

Name ten (10) golf clubs where it takes five (5) hours to play an 18 hole round, which is what you claimed.

After doing so, you can then present your formula which incontrovertibly demonstrates the incremental increase in time for every ten yards of distance on the scorecard, and then attempt to reconcile how rounds are played on the 6,900+ GCGC IN 3:30 and less.

P.S.   My good friend and long (300)  ball hitter, LJ played GCGC in three (3) hours and that was for 27 holes.
          Would you also care to account for that in your formula ?

 

[Jud_T]

Yeah but LJ could have gotten 36 in in 1899.  So I supposes GCGC has plenty of land to stretch out another 1000, 2000, 3000 yards as progress dictates, the dues and maintenance costs will still be the same and LJ will still be playing in exactly the same amount of time?  Oh yeah, where will the inevitable ladies tees go? 

[Ronald Montesano]

I'd like to intercede in this debate (call it intermission if inclined toward theater) and note that PM will recognize and cede to a superior argument. Were I to engage, I would not waste my time with a shotgun answer. Rather, I would chew determinedly every word he wrote, until I found the chink in the armor. You can't win over a lawyer with less than that.

[Doug Siebert]

Part of the fallacy of your analogy is equating our "pace", which in fact is unequal
You may walk at 4 mph but others may walk at 6 or 8 mph.

"Walk" at 6 or 8 mph?  That's generally known as jogging

I think Jud is out to lunch worrying about walking speed in relation to the distance of a course.  Most walkers can walk a typical course in an hour or so.  It is all the stuff that takes place when you're not walking that makes rounds of golf take too long...

[Sean_A]

Part of the fallacy of your analogy is equating our "pace", which in fact is unequal
You may walk at 4 mph but others may walk at 6 or 8 mph.

"Walk" at 6 or 8 mph?  That's generally known as jogging

I think Jud is out to lunch worrying about walking speed in relation to the distance of a course.  Most walkers can walk a typical course in an hour or so.  It is all the stuff that takes place when you're not walking that makes rounds of golf take too long...

Long walks between greens and tees can comfortably add 15 minutes to a round.  With the trend to toward longer courses, sometimes the course is designed from greens to back tees - that equals longs walks.  Sometimes new tees are placed behind the greens, that equals long walks.  These situations added to courses which may already have some longs walks exacerbates the problem - all in the name of additional yardage and safety. Of course, if folks are riding it doesn't make any difference.  This is why Trump Aberdeen stands out from the crowd in the UK with a lot of down time walking.  I reckon the difference in walk time between there and Carnoustie is at least 20 minutes and that is not 20 flat walk minutes either.  There is no question the trend in golf design is to increase walk time.  We even some courses where one has to take bus to play the first hole.  So no, I don't think there is a trend toward shortening courses.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Isn't it about a mile to the first tee at Sand Hills ?

Would you say that Sand Hills is a poorly designed course with long walks from green to tee ?

[Carl Rogers]

shrinking par might be part of this also.  more par threes, fewer par fives.  6500 yards, par 68 could be a stern test. the last President's Cup at RM proved (to me anyway) that the long par 3 is not a requirement.